tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 28, 2015 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
sec. reich: i think you're absolutely right and the greatest enemy of social movements is cynicism. [applause] sec. reich: and every single time anybody detects a degree of cynicism about politics in our democracy to function as it should, as it can, they are contributing to a self of filling prophecy -- self fulfilling prophecy. judge cordell: it is tricky in terms of media coverage. katrina: we do a lot of investigation and you expose corruption in the hope that wrongs will be righted, but it can also lead to cynicism so there is a balancing act. not only is it cynicism, it is cynicism about the role of government. i have heard so many people and they are right, the government is not working on behalf of the people. but to throw it out is the wrong way to go, you want to take it back, clean it up and show the
most important thing you can do, movement in politics, to show that you can improve the condition of people's lives. with stagnation, 40-50 years, you know, african-american communities, it has been brutal and not much attention paid until the last years. that turned people away from politics and government, from a belief that the government can work on behalf of a too often cited common good. van: i think she is holding out on us. we were talking about right and left stuff. you have been able to get people to come together on your issues in a way that i think is shocking a lot of people. so, did you have any insight? ai-jen poo: i did, i was
actually going to say, i have been so inspired by all the work you have been leading on mass incarceration and i think that we have to get smarter and more creative about how we are connecting the dots between and across the kind of pain people feel in this economy. and one thing that we think about a lot is the fact that this country is actually aging, the baby boom generation is reaching retirement age at a rate of a person every eight seconds, 10,000 people turn 55 per day. -- 65 per day. some people call it the silver tsunami. the gray revolution. sec. reich: i regret that. [laughter] ai-jen poo: um. [laughter]
sec. reich: why did somebody give me a microphone? [laughter] ai-jen poo: so. and what is resulting in, also because of advances, people are living longer, so my grandmother's demographic is the fastest-growing in the country, 85 and older. so we will have the largest older population we have ever had in the history of this country. [laughter] >> yay! [laughter] [applause] ai-jen poo: it is a good thing. living longer is loving longer, learning longer, connecting longer, if we have the right support in place and because of the huge demand, the need for caregivers is going through the roof.
and we represent caregivers, the fastest-growing occupation in the nation is home care and the average annual median income for them is $13,000 per year. so you have a situation where millions of people, 27 million to be precise, by the year 2050 will need care just to meet basic daily needs and you have an incredibly counted but overstretched and undervalued workforce. if we could connect the dots where we actually invest in a new care infrastructure and the ability for people to be able to afford the care they need to they can live independently, remain connected to communities, and a workforce that can support that gets invested so that these jobs become good jobs. it is a win-win. people get to age in place and people get good jobs.
win-win, right? [applause] katrina: this is the kind of agenda that create -- connects people across generations and we need that any conference of way. ai-jen poo: so that instead of becoming increasingly polarized along the lines of race and generation, we are turning towards each other and finding solutions. judge cordell: why do the working class, the working poor, so often vote in defense of the 1%, against their best interests and how might we change that? van: i want to say something about that question. i think that this is a question
that i went at, one favorite question among -- and i do not like it. i will tell you why. there are people who vote against their economic self-interest. and the people in this room, what -- rich liberals voting for higher taxes to help poor people are voting against their economic interest, but nobody calls them stupid. they say, it is because we care so much about our values. great. i am a southerner, i grew up on the edge of a small town, went to church every sunday. i am much more comfortable in red state america than anywhere else. and that white guy that looked against our liberal programs is
voting against his economic self-interest and for a set of values. if you listen to what he says, he will say, i know that this may wind up hurting me, but i do not want you taking somebody else's money. and trying to bribe me with their money so you can undermine my parenting decisions, i want my children to be independent and i do not want you taking money to bail them out. i have a value of respect and i do not like you stealing people's money to undermine my parenting decisions. that is value. it doesn't help you with china. but when you come to people and say you are too stupid to know your own interests and us smart liberal folks are going to tell
you what your interests are -- it's highly offensive. it also makes it impossible to partner, because if you insult somebody, do not matter if you are right or wrong. if you have offended them, i go the other way. i understand and i believe you are making decisions that both reflect your economic interest and your value. so let's talk about values and how we can make the family stronger. i will tell you, the one thing you can do to somebody is tell them they are stupid. the liberal elite, i cannot tell you how many times, i will go on about this. this is important. [laughter] van: i remember, in 2004 i had a
son this big, he was little at the time. i was with other progressive folks, they had just reelected george w. bush and they had called the middle of the country, dumb-fuckistan. and everybody laughed. dumb-fuckistan. and i knew in that moment that i was not part of some important thing on the left. [applause] katrina: as a nation i remember that moment, but blaming the people is a politics dead on arrival. the elites of the we failed, but people are not the ones to blame. you are absolutely right, but we have seen a moment, there is the gop crackup where you have the
country club establishment republicans not clear about what is going on with the populace base. you are talking about social values, but i guarantee that donald trump can go to ohio and talk trade and do well with a whole set of people, right, left, center trans-partisan, it is an interesting moment where there are people within the republican party who would vote against self interest who are waking up and saying, wait a minute, i am not getting my share from the country club republicans. i agree with you, politics blames people first. it is not going anywhere. van: i do not think -- this is painful for me. i just don't think you can lead a country you do not love. and there is a part of the left rhetoric that does not love the middle of the country, does not see them in their pain.
and almost cast them out in a way. and that is painful. katrina: ok. there are different lefts and a different rights. my husband is from kentucky, we went down there couple of years ago, owensboro. we spoke at the museum of cars and i was worried. part of what happens, very briefly, as we talk to people you find common interests. the idea that everybody has to agree on everything i have never believed in. you are able to talk. so much of media does not talk to people. it makes them spectators, it makes them feel cynical, it cuts them out. i am saying there is a lot swirling around in this issue.
sec. reich: i was told the reason i got a microphone is because my mic was not working, so you have not heard anything i have said this evening. [laughter] sec. reich: i would like to introduce myself. there are a few things i want to get off my chest. van, i would like to speak on behalf of coastal liberals. [laughter] sec. reich: because i am sure there are some who feel better perhaps than people in the great middle, but actually my experience is there is a widespread sense, whether
coastal liberals or southern conservatives for midwestern tea partiers, are powerless. and that sense of powerlessness is almost universal right now, except for a small elite. i would also like to put in a good word on behalf of the baby boomers who have also come into discussion tonight. i was born in 1946. [laughter] sec. reich: so was bill clinton and george w. bush, so was donald trump, anybody who is anybody was born in 1946. [laughter] [applause] sec. reich: and a lot of the boomers'political learnings and political leaders were not about powerlessness, they were about power. we learned that through organizations, the civil rights movement, we could actually make change. and i think that what americans need more than ever before and it certainly sense in 1960's, is
a sense of that they can make a difference. i have been teaching young people between ages of 18-25 and i have never encountered a young generation that is more idealistic and more determined to give back to this country than the current one. [applause] sec. reich: so i am very optimistic, but i think we can build the coalition we have been working around, but it needs to be based on a sense of mutual interdependence, the need for us to have a voice, to overcome a power structure that is becoming completely unconnected. disconnected from almost everyone, including coastal liberals. [laughter] sec. reich: did you hear me? [applause] sec. reich: sometimes i feel
like i do not have a voice. judge cordell: another question. what are the metrics of success that you look for in tax reform? for example, ted cruz's proposal for a flat tax. [laughter] sec. reich: go for it. there are a number of tax proposals out there, any time of raging inequality, so extraordinarily stupid that almost words fail me. [laughter] sec. reich: the idea of a flat tax. a flat tax necessarily means that high income people will pay less and low income people will pay more. so do not have anybody tell you differently, that will aggravate any quality. -- that will aggravate inequality. it is as bad as trickle down
economics. it is another version of doo-doo voodoo, doo-doo economics. [laughter] [applause] [laughter] sec. reich: have i found my voice? [laughter] katrina: i think on the more positive side, i did love it when bernie sanders said that president eisenhower was far more radical than he was when you consider the tax rate on people, making over $400,000, the equivalent of $3 million today. i am passionate about something called the robin hood tax. it's not new, but it also has transferred support from the conservative finance minister in germany.
the idea of it is small tax on speculation, stocks, trade, currency and take that and reinvested in mainstream, rebuilding the middle class. and the other thing, tax work, unearned income at the same rate or higher than work. it is in saying that you have hedge fund tax loopholes still in the system. so i think that bob could come forward with a manifesto, but quickly, we all know what the solution is. it is the inequality of political power that holds back what could be done to make this a far more rational and fair system. judge cordell: we have received a number of questions about capitalism and a capitalist system. isn't income inequality just the
unfortunate result of a capitalist system? van: at some level, but you can get to a level where the system evens out and you can have -- that probably is where we are. i want to say that something is happening in northern california that i think we have not discussed. we are moving into a digital age now. and it is not unusual to see, talking about millennial's, it is not difficult to see these 23-year-olds, 26-year-olds, multimillionaires wandering around here. in the mission district. [laughter] van: for people who are listening on the radio, that mission district used to be a working-class latino
neighborhood, where i spent my 20's. now it is not. i do think there is something happening. i don't think we should rush past it. there is this technology dimension -- and i do not think that our construction of the liberal conception has caught up. i still think we primarily think of the state as a redistributor, that we are thinking like the industrial age capitalism like production is in the hands of a certain set of people and there is workers and the environment and the state will step in along with popular movements to redistribute wealth. and i just look at what is actually happening in the economy and the one thing i can say is that the future is not being written in laws in
washington, d.c., it seems to be written in the code of silicon valley and it is shipped very fast. the ability of the state to catch up and keep up is dubious. so the popular movements become much more important to me and how we actually get change. i do not mean popular movements to elect candidates, i mean popular movements to deploy technology on a daily basis, to connect on a daily basis and compete inside the actual moment where changes coming. i do not think that the left should say, we are trying to make change. we sound weird when we say that. silicon valley is making change, you have revolutions happening in biotech and nano tech and smart screens, you're going to
be able to prick your finger and put it on a slide and print out your liver in four years. that's real. change is coming faster than we know. our goal should be, making change work for our people. to make change our friend. to find a way where we can use the government or not, whether we can get the government on our side or not, to find ways for popular movements to make change our friend. and where government and be captured, great. i do not think we should lead communities to the tender mercies of the market or the state in an age like this. [applause] katrina: the talk about capitalism makes me think about why bob has been going to the heartland. your book is about capitalism, so i would love to hear your thoughts. there are many different kinds of capitalism.
sec. reich: the point is that there really is not a division between government and free markets and if we accept that division we have given away most of our pertinence. government has created the market. if there was not a patent system that is enforced by the government, where trademarks and patents continue to get longer and it is harder to litigate against them. where intellectual property is a central subject of the transpacific partnership, where the power over networks in terms of standard platforms and standard software portals is getting larger and larger and in the hands of a smaller number of companies and antitrust is not being used, these are all very central questions that have to do with the structure of
markets. so i do not draw this tension between government and markets and part of empowering people is understanding how government is shaping the market and it is not a question of the size of government, a large or small government, is whether the government is working for us. or it is working for a smaller minority of people who have a greater power over it. judge cordell: does that mean lobbyists? sec. reich: this is a big piece of inequality, because lobbyists and also political contributions and also the power of a relatively small minority, to get experts, university experts and think tank experts to substantiate whatever they want in congressional hearings and elsewhere. that power, all of that has a compounding effect on the way
that the market is organized, it tilts the market in the direction increasingly in the direction of the wealthy and wealthy institutions. as the market is stilted in that tilted in that direction you see that , consequence is for the wealthy to have even more power and a large institutions, corporations, wall street again gain even more power over the market. and that compounding gets worse and worse, it is a vicious cycle. unless we understand it and attempt to reverse it through countering that power, we are not going to accomplish much. i could not agree with you more, all of you about the importance of grassroots organization, but that is no substitute for understanding and recapturing the central institutions of our
society. [applause] judge cordell: so one of the questions follows on. corporations united, i mean citizens united. [laughter] judge cordell: we have a couple of questions about what is to be done to reverse that decision, do we need a constitutional amendment? and what is the possibility of getting support from republicans to overturn that decision? so john nichols argues that the movement to appeal citizens united is one of the most vibrant movement in the country. katrina: many states and countries have issued repeal to amend citizens united. obviously we need a different supreme court. [applause] katrina: and this election is critical, the next president will have power most likely to
appoint three justices and john nichols writes we must move immediately. i said, john, we need to give people points along the road. in my city, public financing, 6-1 has not only elected a mayor who ran on an ambitious agenda, he is having trouble, but he has done good things. but the city council has an african-american woman leader, there are several women, radical voices who would not have been elected without that. and so i think public financing empowers people. money, itust limiting empowers people who may not be able to run. a waitress in maine, a sheriff, not a sheriff, but people from
movements in anticorruption trust busting candidate ran with very little money, with some public financing. and gave andrew como a run for his money. i think there are ways to do it. the citizens united decision, others that have now compounded and dismantled what remains, has left us in a place where 150 families have contributed half of the campaign funding so far in this election. so power inequality, you need to begin with public financing. i think in cities and states in this country that can chip away at citizens united. van: our opponents have one strategy. big money in, little people out. that is the approach.
we have it split where you have one part of our movement that talks about big money and the other part talks about voting rights. we do not talk about -- if anybody what to go see the movie selma, that legislation is based on how it was destroyed by the supreme court. so you have us marching for our basic right to vote and others talking about big money, we have got to pull that together. we should have one agenda, big money out and little people in. [applause] sec. reich: the supreme court, remember we are talking about five of nine justices who have been response before the shameful shelby decision you just referred to, for citizens
united and let's not forget, not many years ago -- where the supreme court found money is equal to free speech. to conceive that corporations are people, talk about the triumph of big corporations over little people. we have got to get one vote, we have to get one vote changed. this is not impossible. you are 100% right, the next president, one of the big issues in this election is who is going to be president, i don't generally support tests that you can only be a supreme court justice if you stand for this
one thing or promise this one thing. but i do believe the next supreme court justice, in order to be nominated and confirmed has got to pledge to vote against citizens united. [applause] judge cordell: let's talk minimum wage. are you in favor of raising minimum wage, and if so, what should it be? ms. heuvel: 15. a nation of interns making $15 per hour. [applause] hillary clinton sided with alan krueger in the debate. there are debates about regional numbers. i don't know your latest thinking. i think 15 is the way to go, and we see it moving.
and we have not talked about the power of cities and states, at a time when washington is in gridlock. the coalition in seattle and other cities, it has moved like wildfire. sec. reich: cities and states are moving on minimum wage, and they are also moving on public financing. maine, ohio, connecticut, they are moving on anti-gerrymandering. california, one of the great things we did in california was get districting out from under the politicians. i'm proud to be the chairman of a national organization called common cause, which has done a lot of work -- [applause] sec. reich: and is now focusing on the states on many of these issues. with regard to $15 per hour minimum wage, let me just say this -- i understand the position that says, well, cost of living is different in different parts of the country. but we don't make that kind of distinction when it comes to
worker safety, minimum standards, or child labor minimum standards, or any other moral issue with regard to minimum decency in america. i think that given the minimum wage -- 1968, adjusted for inflation, would be $10.60, and that is not adjusting for the increased productivity. a dramatic increase in productivity, including low-wage workers. if you adjust both inflation and productivity, the minimum wage would be far higher than $15 per hour now. so there should be a nationally minimally decent wage for americans. [applause] ms. poo: there are still some
workers were excluded from minimum wage. 2 million health-care workers were excluded from minimum wage protections because of the 1930's legacy of racial exclusion and the labor loss. this department of labor actually moved forward on a rule change that brought those 2 million workers under protections. [applause] ms. poo: i think it is one of the most important victories for low-wage workers of the obama administration, actually. but there are still workers, people with disabilities who are working who are essentially still excluded from minimum wage protections.
there is a little clause called 14-c which allows for some companies and nonprofits to pay people with disabilities below minimum wage. and we have a tip minimum wage, which i don't like as increased. i believe that's $2.90. so there are still lots of ways in which we need to also fix the swiss cheese of what is minimum wage and secure it, in addition to raising it to 15. there is a campaign led by the restaurant centers united called fair wage, to remove the tip to minimum wage altogether. [applause] judge cordell: katrina, there was some reference made to the transpacific partnership agreement, for which president obama is campaigning. you have called it anti-american. why?
ms. heuvel: this is a question robert reich should be addressing. i think one of the un-american aspects in the way the treaty was sold was how secretive it was. this is how trade treaties have been sold through time. secretive, nontransparent, the incentives for corporations to be non-patriotic and move out of this country. at its root what i have always fought against is the view the progressive left is anti-compensation. it's not. we covered seattle, we covered the fights against a beauty oh, we covered the fights for fair globalization. it is for whom, whose behalf, how. bob referred to the patent laws. the intellectual property
protections, the arbitration secrecy, the lack of access for ordinary citizens to know how they are being shafted by these trade deals that have contributed to the stagnation of wages over the last, 40, 50 years. i don't know it's anti-american, but is the worst of america. it's not the best of our traditions. i think the fight still goes on, but this was a case where we saw wall street exerted its strength, its power, and the present worked hard and over time to sell it. and got into a fight, with i would argue, if bernie sanders is contending for this title, the leader of the populist wing of the party for stop senator warren did not back down and spoke articulately and effectively about the reasons
why she could see other kinds of trade agreements. judge cordell: we have time for one last question. we have come to the end of the program, so i will pose one last question. if you were elected the next president of the united states, within your first 100 days, name one thing that you would do to end income and/or wealth inequality in america. who wants to go first? bob? sec. reich: get big money out of politics. [applause] judge cordell: you have to give us a little more. sec. reich: oh. [laughter] sec. reich: the key to all of this, from the standpoint of what this nation can be and what we want, whether we are talking about a coalition of populist, left, right, whether we are talking about a new set of grassroots initiatives, or whether we are talking about reclaiming our democracy, we can only do it if we get big money
out of politics. this is the keystone. it is not the be all, end all, but it is the first preliminary step. if we want to do anything on the other issues, single payer or free public education, minimum wage, whatever you want to begin looking at, you cannot do it if the game is rigged, and it is rigged. i've been there. i've seen the rigging. i've tried to fight against the rigging. i started out in 1967 as an intern for robert f kennedy. there was not all that much rigging then. washington was a rather poor and seedy place, but it has gotten progressively wealthier. of the five counties surrounding the district of columbia, three of them are among the wealthiest in the united states.
when i started in washington, only 6% of retiring members of congress went on to become lobbyists, because there was not that much money and being a lobbyist. now 50% of retiring members of congress, half of them, become lobbyists because there's so much money. washington is a glimmering emerald city. we have to get big money out of that city and out of every state capital. [applause] judge cordell: if we could hear from the rest? ms. poo: family care. a new system to support the carrying needs of families that would allow them to be more affordable and also improve the quality of caregiving jobs. [applause] judge cordell: van? mr. jones: i know we only have one minute left. ending mass incarceration is the
most important thing, i think, that could be done to make it possible for 40 million african-americans to even have a shot. we have not spoken as much about it as i think we should in these discussions about the economy. so i just have to say this -- you hear over and over again, 5% of the world's population, 25% locked up that means one out of every four people on planet earth are locked up tonight. in the united states, we only have 5% of the world's population. those are disproportionately african-american, latino, minorities. it is now better to be innocent. -- rich and innocent than poor and guilty in this country.
those numbers do not tell the full story. one out of every four african-american men now is predicted to have a prison record by the time they are an adult. it's actually one out of three. that is a repeat of the dehumanization, of enslavement, of jim crow. the idea this could be happening in our country and we continue to act like it is ok or normal i think is something we have to dialogue opposition to. there are safe, smart ways to roll back mass incarceration. this has become -- i want to be clear -- this has become the signature, defining issue for the african-american community, period. and you are talking about a population, if you are a democrat, in order for any
presidential candidate to win as a democrat, african americans have to support that candidate 60%. no, i'm sorry, 70%. no, i'm sorry, 80%. no, i'm sorry, 90%. no, i'm sorry, 92 to 94%. you have a political party, the democratic party, that needs near new unanimous support from our community, and we have to climb over obstacle after obstacle to vote. african-americans are standing in long lines in the rain to vote. and we elect a party that until recently would not even break its breath to talk about the issue. in fact, was on the wrong side of the issue for way too long. i want to say very clearly, for the latino community, immigration is number one. for women, choices number one. the african-american community has a thousand problems, but for us mass incarceration, where you stand on locking up an entire generation of african-americans for something we know kids are
doing right now, is the number one issue. anybody -- i don't care who you are, i don't care what you did in 1963 or 2009 or yesterday -- if you grab a microphone and you say you are a progressive and you don't speak about this issue with some passion and some heart and some concern and care, as if it were your children under this level of threat, you cannot and should not count on the quiet support of african-americans. the obama era of black silence is over. it's over. [applause] [cheers] mr. jones: look, i feel
horrible, personally horrible. i started my career working on this stuff for years and for decades, and we have failed over and over again to challenge the democrats to do better. to force the democrats to stop chasing after fear mongering and racism and support the political points off of our community's backs. that is why you are going to see more -- not less -- more african-americans asking these questions, more african murk and scholars asking these questions, and i big everybody in this room if you hear somebody saying when your thread or anything else,
what are these people doing, they are ungrateful, they are uppity, never again, we are not going quietly. this is getting worse, not better. we have been there. the african-american community has been their own immigrant rights. it was very easy for black folks to come out and say these immigrants are stealing our jobs. you have not heard that. the obama coalition includes latino community and black leadership. they defend immigrants. the black community could have easily been moved against the lgbt movement. our churches are not in the right place on this, but you have not seen any prominent african-american leadership attacking lesbian and gays for 10 years because the black initiative, we say, shut up, these people are part of the coalition. latinos and the environmental issue. the entire congressional black caucus voted for capping trade. we have been there for every contingency down the line. and we insist that people be there for us this time. thank you very much. judge cordell: thank you, president jones. [cheers and applause]
ms. heuvel: very briefly, our priorities are skewed. i would say we must end endless wars as america's engagement with the world. [applause] ms. heuvel: america's policing of the world has detracted from the real security needs, tackling inequality, redefining security at home. and one thing the president could do in the first two hours
is understanding the transition and close the 800 bases ringing this world. they are not going to modernize nuclear weapons. they are not going to begin to take them down to a level. but just understand what endless war has done to damage the principles that could be deployed to end inequality in this country. [applause] ms. poo: before we close out, i just want to take a moment to recognize katrina, van. thank you so much. ms. heuvel: thank you, ai-jen. judge cordell: thank you to professor reich. [applause] judge cordell: thanks to ai-jen poo, director of the national
domestic workers alliance. [applause] judge cordell: thank you to van jones, special white house advisor to green jobs. [applause] judge cordell: and thank you to katrina vanden heuvel. [applause] judge cordell: we also thank everyone in attendance tonight. this has been co-presented by the nation magazine. the conscious of our country for 150 years and counting. now this meeting is adjourned. ♪ ♪ >> ♪ what you want, baby i got
it ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, laura logan, sebastian, and other journalists who risk their lives covering events in the middle east. , wednesdayht at 8:00 night, notable public figures who died in 2015. thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look back at the hearing conference. on new year's day, fidonet 8:00, law enforcement officials, activist, and journalists examined the prison system and its impact on minority communities. on book tv tonight at 8:30 eastern. supporters, activists, and a former white house press secretary. tuesday night at 8:00 features -- wednesday night, authors talk about technology.
thursday at 8:00 p.m., discussions on isis and terrorism, and on new year's day, friday night at 8:00, several in-depth programs from this year. 8:00on c-span3 tonight at a.m. eastern, the 70th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz. 8:00,y night at congressional ceremony on the 150th anniversary of the 13th amendment. wednesday night, a debate on which president would be a -- better model today, calvin coolidge or ronald reagan. thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern, road to the white house rewind and star of the broadway musical special achievement award. that is some of the programs featured in prime time on the c-span networks.
>> american history tv has three days of programming. beginning friday afternoon, at 3:10 eastern, editor of pioneer girl, the annotated autobiography, discusses the life of laura, comparing and .ontrasting the tv show >> read about people, places, and memories not only important to her personally, that would resonate with adult readers in the early 1930 aussies. girl contains scenes of domestic abuse, and a man who live himself on fire with the molotov. >> saturday, author and historian james swanson compares the assassinations of president abraham lincoln and sean kennedy -- and john kennedy.
and the 1965 meet the press interview with daniel moynahan who, as assistant labor secretary, offer support on the causes of black poverty in the united states. >> i believe what president johnson said in his speech. you cannot keep a man in chains for centuries and then take them off and say, you are free as anyone else. people need to be given the opportunity to compete effectively and i believe we should make a special effort. >> sunday night at 9:30, a visit in washington dc to hear himself designs for a new national world one memorial fourth of coming 100th anniversary. complete holiday schedule, go to c-span.org. congress is out for the year but both chambers return in january
for the second session congress. the house returns january 5 plans to begin work on a reconciliation bill that the funds planned parenthood while also repealing the health care law. the senate approved that measure but the president said he will veto the legislation. they plan to begin consideration of a judicial nomination in pennsylvania. will movealso said he to acquire an audit of the federal reserve. you can follow the senate live on the spent to, and the house on c-span. wrote to the white house coverage continues now with martin o'malley at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. this is a little more than an hour.
>> where is our host and hostess? thanks a lot for doing this. is your husband here? nice to meet you. martin o'malley, how are you? good to meet you. i heard you were having a party. [laughter] all you needed was a presidential candidate. thought i would come by. you invited c-span and everything. where should i speak from? ok. in the kitchen? >> nicely lit. mr. o'malley: how are you? good to see you -- how are you? that would be awesome.
thanks. that's good. ok. can i get you all anything? [laughter] good to see you. supporting martin o'malley for president. thank you. is anybody going to kick us off here or do i just jump in? looks like i'm just jumping in. look, i want to thank you all for being here. william did you entertain earlier? >> i tried. >> i want to thank my son william o'malley for being up here. [applause] so what have you discussed already? >> to be honest i didn't get to make much ground as i usually do. seems like everyone is pretty fired up.
as much as they could be the weekend before christmas. o'malley: let me jump right into it. let me say thank you to all of you for what you did for our country. because at a time when a lot of us as americans are feeling that maybe big money and old type relationships determine the outcome of the race before anybody's voted the good news is that here in new hampshire every individual person still matters. and one of the things i know about the people of new hampshire is that you insist on meeting each of us two three four or five times before you make a decision. right? you're not unlike the other americans who have this weighty responsibility of being one of the first in the nation and that is your brothers and sisters in the state of iowa. i was recently in fairfield, iowa. a woman said to me this is my third time seeing you. and i said well how am i doing?
and she said you're doing well. i'm seeing a lot of growth. and i said a lot of growth. is that how you decide who you're going to support? and she said as a matter of fact my husband and i go to see you all as much as we can. and whoever grows the most that's who we vote for come the election. so thank you for being here and thank you for what you do for our country. i consider it a great honor that i am able to offer a candidacy and a better way forward for our country, especially in these times. and look, i know when a man comes before you when any person stands before you and says he's running for president, and i have 7% national support and the election's 45 days away and i tell you the campaign's going really well, that there's a fine line between delusion and imagination. [laughter] but i'm not imagining this. the phrases i hear all throughout our country everywhere i have gone for the last
year-and-a-half are the phrases new leadership, and getting things done. we understand at a gut level that as a nation we need to be able to solve our problems and make our country stronger if we're going to have any hope of giving our children a future that is safer, healthier, and where there's mosh opportunity rather than less. i am the only candidate -- did you watch the debate last night? how many of you -- thank you for doing that. 8 million people watched even though it was on the saturday before christmas. >> you did a great job. mr. o'malley: thank you. god bless you for your discerning judgment on candidates. [laughter] how many of you, be honest, had to wrestle the channel changer away from your kids? look, i was the only candidate on that stage with 15 years of experience as a mayor and governor, actually getting things done, getting people together, taking acts not words, not speeches. it's great to be a voice for change but in order to create a better future we have to make change.
that's what i had to do. i ran not because our city was doing well but because we had great challenges. and we were very divided. we came together on new leadership. we weren't able to make immune but we were able to save a lot of lives by driving down crime. no sooner had i been sworn in that we were hit with that recession. but instead of trying to cut our way to prosperity we took action to include more of our people more fully in the economic, social, political life. what actions? passing a living wage, raising a minimum wage, raising our goals for minority and women business inclusion at the highest of any state in the country and actually exceeding them even in
a recession. investing more in education rather than less. making our public schools the best in america five years in a row. going four years in a row without a penny increase to college education. driving down our incarceration rate to 20 year lows. and here's a radical action for you. we actually made it easier for people to vote instead of harder for people to vote. what a novel idea. we passed marriage equality. we passed the dream act. we defended both of them at the ballot. and when all of those kids were slaughtered in the classroom in connecticut we brought our people together and passed comprehensive gun safety legislation and a ban on combat assault weapons. and many of the things we got done we did not get done on the first try.
but we did not give up. we apolished the death penalty. while defending a aaa bond rating in the highest median income in america, the u.s. chamber of commerce which hardly ever says nice things about democratic governors named us the number one state in america for innovation and entrepreneurship. we created a faster rate of job creation. i share all of those things with you because these are all acts not words but actions. and that is what our country needs right now. look, eight years ago when our nation was this close to the second great depression because of reckless behavior on wall street, we put forward a new president in barack obama to move our country forward. right? and that is what he has done. 69 months in a row of positive job growth. our country is doing better. let's applaud for that. [applause] but the hashed truth that we have done if we are going to have credibility to win this election in the fall and build upon
president obama's good works is that 70% of us today are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago. so we still have work to do. we elected a president not a magician and this is urgent work. you and i are part of a living self-creating mission called the united states of america. but the promise that is at the heart of that mist vi a real concrete thing. it is the promise that says wherever you start in our country you start through your own hard work, grit, talent, determination, love of family, you should be able to get ahead when you work hard. that's what's earned us the title the brand, if you will, that no other nation has, of being the land of opportunity. because we take actions in every generation to include more people more fully. the freedom of exodus is not merely from oppression. was it? it was the freedom for full participation.
so the good news is this. we need only return to our true selves as americans. and that means understanding and remembering that our economy is not money, it's people. it's all of our people. and therefore we must do three things consistent with the actions our parents and grandparents took in our pest in order to give our kids that better future. number one, we have to restore common sense wage and labor policies back to the center of our economic choices. what does that mean? raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour however we can wherever we can. it means paying overtime pay for overtime work. it means making real finally the promise of equal pay for equal work for men and women. [applause] it means joining the other developed nations of the world by passing paid family leave so that -- [applause] it means making it easier and not harder for people to join
labor unions and bargaining collectively for better wages because that helps all of us. and if you want to get wages to go up again in our country one important action is tote get 11 million of our neighbors out of the underground shadow economy where they oftentimes work off the books by passing comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. the second thing that we need to do -- we'll return to more accurately. no nation ever cut its way to prosperity. great countries build up jep rational wealth and opportunity, don't by locking cash in the closet. we invest in things that pay a return over the generations. what are they? not only in investments in research and development human solutions to human problems but also our infrastructure.
that which connects us. that means mass transit. that means roads and bridges and increasingly cyber infrastructure upon which our economy depends. and it also means investing in the talents and the education levels of our people. that's what we've always done. other nations have emulated us and we turned away from our true selves because we're the only nation on the planet that saddles our graduating kids as they get that diploma in college with a lifetime of debt. look how far the pendulum swung. my dad went to college on a g.i. bill. my daughters went to college on a mountain of bills. and it doesn't need to be this way. i put forward a plan to move us to debt free college in the next 5 yeemplets it's not only good for the kids going to college, it's good for our whole economy. what makes our economy grow and go. finally the great challenges of our time. look, in every generation we face challenges as a nation. and we have been able to overcome these challenges, oftentimes
making them an opportunity by turning to one another. one of the biggest challenges we face is we are going -- touch on two. climate change. the greatest business opportunity to come to the united states in a hundred years. i don't know about you but i was very, very proud of our country at those recent negotiations in paris when 16 nations agreed to move -- 16 nations agreed to move forward to a clean energy future. i'm the only candidate so far still hopeful -- i'm the only candidate so far to put forward a plan to move us to clean energy grid by 2050 and create jobs along the way. the second big challenge. the second big challenge. that changing nature of conflict
that we were all so tragically reminded of in the recent attacked in san bernardino. the nature of warfare has changed. september 11th was not some one-off event. it was the beginning of what will likely be a century of the change nature of warfare. where conflicts happen in gray zones, where networks of terror attack democracies and democrat sises have to learn to become more quickly proactive. think of this. in our immune system, is able to protect us not because it outnumbers the bad bugs of the world but because it's better connected. it reacts more quickly. it gets inside the turning radius of a virus and is able to
protect us. we have a lot of work to do to move from the way we used to gather intelligence, where it was shared only on a need to know basis and instead change to a culture where it's imperative to share. but this has been my background. as a mayor and governor, the nation's mayors and governors chose me year in and year out to be one of two leaders to be on homeland security. for states need to develop to protect us here on this homeland. but this brought to the foreanother sort of danger we need to face, the danger and vulnerability of democracy that we face in the wake of such attack unscrupulous politicians try to turn us against one another. what i'm talking about are the increasingly more overt fascist appeals of one plfment donald trump whose sadly leading right
now in the polls the party of lincoln. abraham lincoln would be rolling over in his grave right now, a man who asserted our common humanity to hair the way donald trump is scape goating muslim americans, american muslims. i said last night in the debate and i share with you, i have a good friend at home who was putting his two boys to bed. and his dad had come here in 1963 the year i was born, imgrated from a rural part of india. their family is of the muslim faith. this ten-year-old boy said to him, dad, where will we go if donald trump gets elected and we're forced to move out of our home? this is all very, very real. that the dad could not go to sleep and he wrote a beautiful two-page letters to his son about everything that our country is about. and the belief that we're all in this together. our belief in the dignity of every person.
our faith that because we are one and our cause is one, that if we help each other we can succeed, we can overcome any challenge. these are the things that make us great as a country. these are the greatest powers that we have in fact as a people. and it's these values and these freedoms that need to be called out and summoned forward in order for us to meet the challenges of our time. look, i need your help. i have always been drawn to a tough fight and there's some people who say to me as they look at the odds and this race, this is a tough fight. i know. i kind of like a tough fight. i think the toughness of the fight is the way god has showing us that we're fighting for something worth saving. our country's future is worth saving. our children's future and the american dream is worth saving. this planet is worth saving. and this world is looking to us
to step up and to act like americans in order to do the urgent work of these times. i need your help. i know here in new hampshire you can make that happen. thanks a lot. [applause] ok. the fun part. questions and answers. and by golly if you have answers. i'm on a search for answers. >> i live right down. thank you very much for coming. >> my honor. thank you for coming. >> my question is, i really like your ideas. but we have a congress that as you know we have these republicans that obviously takes a lot more than ideas to get anything past them. so tell me how you are -- you would be able to work with the
congress to get any of these great ideas passed. >> yes. you ask the recurring permanent congress question. everywhere i go, people ask about the congress. all of us are so deeply concerned about what appears to be the inability of our congress to get anything done. talking to a high ranking judicial official from your own state whose name shall remain nameless. who said i honestly believe that if the constitution were put to a vote before this particular congress they wouldn't be able to pass it. so there are three of us running in our party for this work. i don't see an easy button. i don't have a way to kind of poll vault beyond. but i can tell you this. that we've been through this before and we've come through these times before. because when americans are faced
with this sort of partisan gridlock they instinctively understand that we need new leadership. not leadership that's going to divide us based on old ideology, not that says all republicans are my enemies, as secretary clinton said. but how to bring people together and get things done. that's what i've done. as some of the things that i mentioned to you we only accomplished because of some republican votes. marriage equality. took us three times and we only got it done with some republican votes. repealing the death pement. that took us three times and we only got it done with republican votes. in fact, 65% of the bills that i put forward were support bid majority republican support in either the house or senate in my
own state. and let me give you one other consoling thought. just as you and i can agree we're going to be here forever, neither is this republican congress. so we have an opportunity every two years to hit the reset button here. and yes we were saddled with a very unrepresentative house of representatives when the congressional district borders were redrawn right after we lost a third of our democratic governors. but that redistricting is also coming up again and i believe more and more states are going to move to bipartisan redistricting commissions. in the meantime we have to elect a leader who can strengthen again the strength of our soft ties. to be able to talk to people as people. understand where they are coming from, appreciate the fact that we are all in this together. and republicannings aren't our enemies. they are our colleagues, relatives, uncles. neighbors. >> we're dawning a new age of mankind. we're ending the fossil fuel age. so the most frustrating thing would be debate. you're about to hit my list. i can't tell you, just we -- not one question about climate
change. so i would love -- i would love to have you next time just ask the question. are you guys going to ask this one question about climate change? seriously you get a huge ovation. >> the only mention in the debate of climate change and immigration reform came in my closing. as i'm sitting back saying really? we spent 15 minutes talking about email hacking? . maddening for me too. what's another one? >> my other thing is that when you're -- >> maybe we should have a debate solely dedicated to the eco enlightened era. >> there you go.
>> tom stire actually said that we should have a debate about climate change entirely. >> i think that would be very interesting. >> maybe have rachel do a forum. then we would get equal time, right, paul? >> put pressure on the republicans. seriously. we did the whole debate on it? acknowledge, does that. is there anything any question -- i can imagine walking out going i should have -- the next day. is there anything? like every time. trial lawyers have a friend of mine told me that her father was a trial attorney and he used to say the best closing arguments i make are the ones in the car on the ride home. i should have said this, i should have done that. i really do wish that we had talked about climate change, i wish we had talked about immigration reform. i also would have liked to share
what we were doing that actually works. did i give you my answer on health care? here's my answer on health care. in our state thanks in part to the affordable care act, thanks to the application of big data and an all payor system where we set hospital rates for all payers, we were able to get a waiver that allowed us to move all 46 of our acute care hospitals out of fee for service and into global payments. which means that for all of their medicare and medicaid patients they get a payment based on what we know historicically is the -- what it costs to treat their people. and if they can reduce the avoidable hospital admissions then they get to share. and last year we saved $110 million by reducing avoidable
hospital room admissions by 11% and it was reported we're the only state that's doing this. but there's no reason we should be the only state. so to reduce the cost of health care by reducing the institutional care that's really -- that doesn't contribute to keep our people well that's what i would have said on the health care. as climate stuff i brought people together to pass a deprouse gas reduction bill, -- greenhouse gas bill. i believe the key here is about measuring performance. about measuring outcomes.
about letting everybody see the dashboard and thermometerer and the action drives us to goal. this is an engineering challenge. we didn't land a man on the moon with an all of the above strategy. it was an engineering challenge. i would encourage you to call for a debate entirely on america's energy future and role in the world. it could be a cool debate. i can't see beyond the beautifully bright kitchen spot lights.
no doubt you install these for every presidential candidate that stops by your house on a sunday. >> i just wanted to bring up two things. -- that remains to be determined. us,ever candidate can help that will be my vice presidential candidate. but thank you for noticing this. all of us as citizens have to step up here and this isn't funny, it's not entertaining. issuing id cards to americans based on their faith we know where that path leads and it's not to a good place.
>> my name is peter. there's been a fair amount of discussion at least in some publicications recently about the matter of inversion. corporations doing business overseas as well as in the united states earning a lot of money overseas not wanting to bring it back because of what they per see as burdensome tax obligations. fieser i think is involved in acquiring a pharmaceutical company in ireland and moving there. my question is -- and that obviously involves a lot of employment opportunities for many americans. it also means that we continue to have income that could have been taxed at some point overseas and not in the united states. do you feel that there's anything you could do or that perhaps
the legislative branch could do that might constructively address that problem in a effort to benefit the united states and our own cause? >> it's a use problem. there's a bill dick doiben sponsored that i'm very supportive of that i think would go a long way. inversions are a polite way of saying tax avoidance. that's what they're doing. i also think we make a mistake when we allow people to defer payment on taxes until they repatriate the dollars. that almost begs them to do that. and if you have answers pop up, too. >> i have a follow-up. answers, please feel free to throw those out, too. >> some pundits have recently suggested that if there was a degree of amnesty, one, so that those funds could be brought back to the united states and anthis occasion pay a somewhat lesser tax, and also have recommended perhaps a different taxing structure so as to encourage or more particularly discourage inversions in having
ab ongoing loss of large emploirs. i recognize that may seem like being a little chicken, might sound like a republican argument. but isn't it possible that some movement in that direction might discourage more inversions, may preserve more employment opportunities in the united states and actually get gained tax albeit at somewhat less than currently the case? >> yes. provided that the code doesn't remain riddled with swiss cheese and all sorts of exemptions that allow ge to pay zero in the course of the year. i think the durbin bill would go a long way on the inversions. as far as the amnesty goes, one
time i think the one time amnesty isn't a good idea. we need to solve this challenge moving forward. i think we need to do it. we need to have a simplified tax that's clear. even if it's lower. but i also think that -- i also think that part of this has to do with not allowing them to offshore and leave them parked out to only be with. deferring until a tax amnesty or bring them home. other nations don't do that. yet there are also a lot of nations that don't make any attempt that tax foreign earned profits. >> the corporate side to the social side. the highest tax, personal tax rate drastically since the late
70s, early 80s. >> 70% now 39. >> in the meantime wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. and what i've noticed here in new hampshire, for example, at the same time is that the cost of semester at unh has gone up ten times. and federal aid our university system has decreased. >> and state oftentimes. states across the united states have been cutting what they do. >> what are you going to do with the tax code? what is equitable? >> this is what i think is eek tabble. our budget is roughly 3.2 trillion on an annualized basis. our federal government. if we did two things. just two things. if we only did two things what
would those be? one would be to raise the marginal rate on incomes above $1 million to 45%. the second one would be to tax capital gains for the most part just like you tax earnings from sweat and hard work. and other endeavors. if you did those two things conservatively we would generation $100 billion over the next ten years. and that could pay not only debt free college again. there's an option for every family. it could pay for a loss of other -- a lot of other things as well. so if i could do just two things, we had a congress that were reasonable. so those are the two things that i would suggest. and there's other ideas like the transaction tax on wall street, that is an idea that also by itself, that would be something that could pay the carried interest loophole and the hedge fund managers. that's what i propose would pay
for my proposal to make national service a universal option. >> last night you were the first person i believe on the debate stage to saw that donald trump's remarks were being used by isis to recruit people into terrorism. this morning on meet the press, i know you were elsewhere. we were watching. and chuck todd in his conversation with donald trump showed a clip of hillary saying the exact same thing and donald trump saying she can't prove it. there's no clip, there's no whatever. and i would ask you, since there are those fact check kind of things are going to come up.
>> yeah sometimes they're very subjective. >> yes. but if you could produce something that actually supported your comments last night, which i believe frankly, i think it would get you some much needed air time and space in the mead y, media, where i think they've been quite unfair. >> but then hillary wouldn't know what to say next week. [laughter] >> that's ok. i let hillary worry about hillary. >> here's what i have been saying. is that donald trump is playing right into the hands of isil propaganda by trying to paint this as a war of western democracy versus the muslim faith. [applause] when donald trump starts targeting americans based on their faith, he plays into their hands. i think hillary said there's a training video or something. i'm not aware of any training
video. it wouldn't surprise me but i'm not aware of a training video. but i think all of us as thinking people understand that his rhetoric plays right into their hands. that's their story that they are at war with western democracies, that they are trying to kill great world religion even though they are perverting that great world religion by their genocidal behavior. >> i'm just wondering if you have any plans like you would do or what you think could be done to eliminate or at least lessen the huge influence of money in the political process. >> yes. sure. let me talk about this. i have put forward one of the -- i put forward 15 strategic goals to move our country forward. one of them is publicly financed congressional elections within the next five years. it is shameful but our proud republic does, decent men and women of both parties, they run for congress and as soon as they get elected some guy pulls
them aside, man or woman, and says congratulations you are now a member of congress. come this way. you are now going to be a telemarketer for 20 hours a week. i think the public is way ahead of the politicians on this one. i think given the amount of what is at stake it's a small amount to pay. i have gone to publicly financed route when it comes to matching funds in this presidential campaign. i'm the only one of the three of us in our own state we had a i'm the only one of the three of us in our own state we had a public finance mechanism that we passed for governors races and in many cities moving forward publicly financed city council elections. people are kind of liking that. that's what i believe we should do.
and i also believe instead of the democratic party chair telling us that we should not have more debate, wouldn't it be great if the party's leadership was calling upon all 50 states to organize around two really important goals, two constitutional amendments? let's work, let's talk, let's dialogue, let's reach the deeper understanding that proceeds better action. and the two that i would choose, if debbie wasserman schultz were asking me for suggestions, would be to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote and a constitutional amendment that overturns citizens united. we've got to organize. yes, you may get the last one. >> talk about a lot of pressure. governor o'malley: tell me your name.
>> sara. specifically then. guaranteing a right to vote automatic voter registration and what would you do about the electoral college? because a lot of people feel that's part of the problem. governor o'malley: i love the automatic registration thing. i wish i had thought about it while i was governor. i would have pushed it while i was still there. so i love the idea of automatic registration. in terms of the electoral college do you know what state was the first state to pass the bill that would go to popular elections? >> it was maryland. governor o'malley: it was maryland. we were the first state to pass that movement of popular vote. i think is what it's called. that would say that your state's electrical votes would go to whoever the popular vote winner was. and i think when you get a certain number of states to do it that's the thinking behind that movement. so i would be in favor of that, too. thank you guys very much. i appreciate you being here. thanks a lot.
[applause] >> one more. >> in terms of fracking. the fracking. so new york recently -- governor o'malley: did a total moratorium. >> and yet in maryland. governor o'malley: i didn't but bernie sanders' campaign tells you i did. >> no. you need to check. governor o'malley: this is what we did. i know it very, very well. we passed the highest on my way out of office we never allowed fracking in my state while i was governor. that's the first. >> and it's not from bernie's website. governor o'malley: never allowed fracking in our state while i was governor. in fact, we did commission a study on it to figure out how we
could get to zero methane and what sort of regulations would protect our streams so that they didn't suffer the same damage that pennsylvania subject t their streams to. and our water shed of the chesapeake bay and all around us people are opening up the flood gates to this. so before i left office, knowing the political perils involved because i had a republican successor coming in after me, i promulgated the highest and best regulations for the protection of our air, our water, human health with zero tolerance for methane release of any state in the union. and so that's that's what i did on my way out of office in order to make it more difficult for any future governor to open up our streams. also with the water. there were pretty extensive regulations.
in fact, the industry didn't want us to put forward any regulations at all because they didn't want us to set a higher standard. i judge it was my hope since we had gotten five states in the bay water shed to help us to do their part to clean up our waters, it was my hope that if we promulgated these regulations that organizers in our neighboring states might have a yard stick they could point to. there were many who said they would do it. people will mischaracaterize it and accuse you of allowing fracking as governor. i can't stop that, but i can put forward the higher standard and that's what i did. put forward the higher standards. the governor who came in afterwards said that he kind of pulled the plug on those. but nonetheless they were public. they were out there. the study's out there. that's what we did. thank you. >> thank you for showing up and being here. i live up in dover a little
north of here. this is my friend matt. at the university of new hampshire. we're very interested in higher education in general. and i know you had a specific question that i have as well. governor o'malley: do you teach? >> i do. as part of the graduate program. more hands on. he is a scientists so he does more lab work. but we love teaching we're very passionate about higher ed. the one thing we're really wondering is every year, our tuition, our fees are going up. one of the main drivers is new dorms, stadiums and campus rec facilities. so what we're wondering is how do you reinin spending when -- how do you rein in spending
when we're told you have to have all this stadium to bring in students. now our fees and our tuition are going up because of this. how do you rein in the university? governor o'malley: almost like a nuclear arms race. >> how does government do that so the tax payers don't subsidize all of their spending? governor o'malley: we have to declare a national goal that tuition and fees of public universities should not be more than 10% of median family income. and we need to create a block grant program that states can avail themselves only if they are working toward that percentage goal as a national goal. so that's what i've put in my plan. i think it's 5% median income for a bachelor's degree. not more than 10% of median income for a four-year degree. and in my experience as an executive and as a governor, i never met two groups of professionals that were more in love of building their buildings than university heads and judges.
judges have a building fettish like no other profession. and i say that even being married to one. so i think it's almost like -- it's not unlike the health care thing where we put the health of the institution at the center rather than the best interest of the individuals. good talking with you. thanks again. >> good to see you again. >> i haven't seen you since portsmouth. >> thank you. governor o'malley: you are awesome last night. >> we are on a learning curve.
governor o'malley: they gave us a short runway to take off on this carrier. the first to beat i had to introduce myself. the second debate, we had to dial-up the debate. >> you're right. governor o'malley: more time for us. and we got more times am i? good. >> your message is clear. education. what do we do with unemployment not in big cities but rural part of the country? big cities get a lot of money for education. but small towns that are underperforming schools don't get the recognition and they don't get the money. governor o'malley: even if they're title 1? >> they get a little title 1 money. but they don't get a lot of money. not a lot of influx, computers and things like that.
and they struggle to survive. governor o'malley: in our own state, regardless of whether a school was in a poor jurisdiction or a wealthier one or a rural or an urban, it was the same mechanism that was -- and the same funding that would go into turning that school around. so it was kind of a state thing. but i guess it varies on turning around these lowest performing schools. i guess it varies. >> exactly. governor o'malley: from state to state. >> i worked in massachusetts and worked in new hampshire. i found that massachusetts tried to do some work with underperforming schools that were rural. new hampshire less so. governor o'malley: hmm. i guess it is also like public health, too. that varies from state to state. >> i know what you mean. something to think about. probably reach a broader spectrum because a big city's got a lot. >> start over.
governor o'malley: we made -- when i was first elected in our city -- by the time i was done i believe grades 1-6 and 1-7 were majority proficient reading or math. we were a late implementer on all day kindergarten. but once we did it, the first they scored above the national average in reading and math. and that was the way -- >> exactly. and that's what you have to start. you have to start at the primary level. governor o'malley: universal pre-k. good return on dollars. i would like to see us reform our high schools with more career and technical education. not everybody needs to go to college. governor o'malley: a lot of people don't have a hope of they to college unless
have a traitor or a skill. >> that's right. governor o'malley: the good lord gives us plenty of work to do. good to see you. thanks for hanging with me. we've got to filling yur out a way to change -- figure out a way to change the way we live. >> we have to think about life cycle cost. [indiscernible] i'm just curious -- again, about climate change and how it is going to affect, really, not only energy, the way we get energy, but also affecting -- even if we thought , iwas an energy problem think it's a lifestyle problem. we got a clean technology tomorrow that would solve the problem, we still have
5.5 billion people. there's still going to be issues with extraction and environment. tohave to figure out a way change the way we live. governor o'malley: we have to think about life cycle cost. we have to think about our economy in ecosystemic ways. that's what i said last night. i don't know if anybody mocked me on twitter for saying that. but we have to think about how to construct an economy that this costs. another guy that's done a lot of good work on this called ecological footprint people. measure how much of your footprint as a nation you used up as a given calendar in a year. almost like -- it shows kind of
debter net credit tor nation in terms of which they use up the replenishable resources in their part of the globe. shasta but it's a big paradigm shift. if we start thinking about the way we measure the economy right now -- it's heavily on wall street. the stock market is up, it's doing good. yeah! governor o'malley: they watch the news and they watch the leaders saying the stock market is up, it's super heated. >> have you heard of the whole idea of gross domestic happiness? governor o'malley: do you know what state was the first date -- [applause] [laughter] to establish a genuine progress index for their state? maryland. progress index. not unrelated to the happiness thing.
it was like a bobby kennedy speech. gdp measures everything except that which makes us proud to be americans. the quality of our children. the genuine progress index. you can find it online. the new guy is probably not doing it. he's not much into it. but we did it and there are many states that have followed suit. there are probably about seven states that have now adopted a progress index like how much time you spend in progress, the cleanliness of the air. other things. tbi. -- gpi. it's a bit of a movement. >> good talking point. bring that up at the next debate. try to, ifmalley: we
we have a debate on the environment. >> eco enlightened days. governor o'malley: i like it. >> and eco energy. this has to be act a future with more prosperity. governor o'malley: we also have to wrap this in a prosperity framework. it has to be more prosperity, not less. >> genuine progress. the goal -- the goal is to get people to .tart thinking some would say the environmental movement has failed. we have to change a lot of things. --governor o'malley: about 30% prosperity over living systems of this earth.
>> so the goal, think about the people. they start going, ok, i could live like that. that's pretty cool. so they start getting more involved. >> young people aren't intimidated by it. paul's my friend. younger people don't dismiss climate change with lame excuses. paul has helped me write every state of the state i did in maryland. >> i think more people are getting it. first, we have what 180. governor o'malley: we didn't talk about that in the debate. with spent more time talking about her's campaign attacking hillary's. my head was about to pop off. >> how are you? >> pretty good. >> i think i worked this summer with a distant relative of yours. joel? bowery? does that ring a bell?
[indiscernible] where was'malley: that? >> in pennsylvania? governor o'malley: new princeton? >> harrisburg. governor o'malley: i have a lot of relatives in pennsylvania. >> he's from new york though. staten island. >> i don't know him yet but if he's an o'malley. >> you were at a wedding that he was at. governor o'malley: well, if he's an o'malley we're probably related. >> it's great meeting you. governor o'malley: tell me your name again. >> daniel. i'm very curious to know, you mentioned you have a plan to make us fully energy. can you give the specifics a little bit? governor o'malley: sure.
part is to extend greatly the tax credits for solar and wind and stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. secondly, i believe we need to make greater investments in research and development and to the next generation it's safer nuclear. simply offer it, the public do away with the sort of waste that's building up behind the older technology and riskier technology. and the third part of it is i believe that we need to see the new generations of buildings that generates more energy than they consume. so living buildings, green buildings. the third component being also strategy from growing more people and rebuilding our cities and attacking structural unemployment. >> what about like solar versus wind? governor o'malley: i'm for more solar and wind. in my state we built up a sizeable solar industry. always keep that, where it was zero just a few years ago. in iowa 4,000 people are employed in wind today that weren't employed 15 years ago and 30% of their energy now comes from wind. i also believe our government
needs to invest in some of the grid infrastructure like also the east coast where all the big new york power is used and where there's offshore wind. in my state i passed an offshore wind bill. >> cool. governor o'malley: also more transient. >> thank you very much. the food safety modernization -- thank you. >> 1, 2, 3. what's youralley: name? >> [indiscernible] governor o'malley: what's your first name?
>> sydni. governor o'malley: how old are you, sydney? >> [indiscernible] governor o'malley: do want to do a picture? >> ready, 1, 2, 3. thank you so much. governor o'malley: hopefully one day you run. one day, maybe? the one thing wrong with politics, not enough of good people try. >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> the maryland state arts council. me i didery angry with not say hello the last time we came to see you. governor o'malley: tell me your name again? >> dorothy. governor o'malley: good to meet
you, dorothy. >> keep up the good fight. governor o'malley: thank you. i will. you, too. >> you look like a young entrepreneur. >> [indiscernible] >> hi, sara. what are your restaurants called? >> [indiscernible] cool.or o'malley: i will have to come by. [indiscernible] good to meetlley: you, too. thanks for coming out today.
good to see you. thanks for being there for me last night. god bless you. we've got to keep going. >> [indiscernible] governor o'malley: oh, good. [laughter] >> yeah, that's clever. i think she got that from a coal ski. mikulski.rbara >> [indiscernible] reallyto ask you a important question. this is a working farm here to and there are a number of farms. what are your thoughts on food safety and modernization? would thismalley: require labeling? isno, no, i don't think this
a gmo issue. [indiscernible] what are your thoughts on there? what are yourley: thoughts? inform me. give me some thoughts. >> i believe it is a top-down approach that is really designed for large scale food operations. governor o'malley: so it hurts small producers? >> absolutely. governor o'malley: why, because the regulations -- just the regulations. is the style of regulation. i believe it comes from a quality assurance industry style of regulation which is very similar to how our drugs are regulated. you're producing a drug it's going out to millions of people. it's really critical to have -- we need to have no viruses in our water. in the same with drugs. so we will use this filter. so this has to be top notch. when you're looking at me as a
farmer and i know that -- how -- i know that -- governor o'malley: how long have you been in farming? >> eight years full time. prior to that i was an inspector. but what are your thoughts on the food safety modernization? governor o'malley: if you have sendhing you can send me, me something. i don't have any clear thoughts on the food modernization act. i welcome your ex cheese. -- i welcome your expertise. [indiscernible] doctor aow, you need a few times in your life. you need a farmer three times a day. it just passed. point me to aley: link or something where i can become -- john is our new hampshire guy.
basically tell me why it does not work for you. i need to know what works and what does not work. i believe in things that work. >> thank you. i am againstlley: things that don't work. >> hi, i'm renée. governor o'malley: rené? >> we are going to do a picture real quick. governor o'malley: were going to do a picture? [indiscernible] >> 1, 2, 3.
>> one more. 1, 2, 3. awesome. governor o'malley: i should have introduced sam. sam is our eighth organizer. [applause] sam is an incredibly hard worker. what you do not know about sam though, if he does not sign up at least 20 new people for o'malley for president every day, he goes home and cries. [laughter] please, don't let him go home crying. thank you. thanks a lot. i had too'malley: fight my way through some of these debate formats. >> picture? governor o'malley: sure.
this is a work in progress?\ >> yeah. [indiscernible] it puts me inley: mind of robert frost poems or something. first in the nation. >> thank you. thank you again. governor o'malley: thank you a lot. thanks for your question. "q&a" with author n on his book "dead wake" about the sinking of the lusitania.
passengers died, including 228 americans. you can watch that at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2. and foreign affairs correspondent look at the dangers of reporting from the middle east. here is more. to iraq earlier this year. my daughter asked me if she could come with me. she is five. she says, mommy, can i come with you. i had to say, no. eventually i said, it's not safe for little kids. there are bad guys there. it's not a nice place for children to go. and she said, well, then why are you going. i said, there's always good guys . i'm going to be with the good guys.
and she said, if you don't come back, that means the bad guys got you. and i said, i'm coming back. but i have to say -- not just going to war, you try looking at your five and six-year-old when you are putting everything in waterproof containers to go do ebola and liberia, which has the most civil wars in history, and the liberians told me over and over again that it is a silent killer. so, he is at that point where yet, i would've made a different decision at 30. it's a very hard thing to do. but i feel like it is part of my dna.